by DEVIN NUNES
Today, all of America witnessed one more example of the current majority’s failed leadership when immigrant children were used as a political prop by House Democratic leaders.
For the past four years, Democrats had significant majorities in Congress as well as two Presidents – a Republican then a Democrat - willing to sign an immigration reform bill. However, instead of dealing with the issue in the light of day with public hearings and a thoughtful, deliberate, and responsible process, Democrats chose to force a vote on legislation during the waning days of a lame-duck Congress with little chance for debate, no chance of amendment, and no chance of getting to the President’s desk.
Make no mistake, the activity in the House today was nothing more than an attempt by Democrats in Congress to pander to Hispanic voters for partisan political purposes.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
High Speed Train Wreck
by DEVIN NUNES
Originally printed in the Fresno Bee.
Just days before Halloween and about a week prior to the general election, the White House announced billions in stimulus spending around the country. These grants, a by-product of the stimulus slush fund created by Congressional Democrats last year, were used to provide last-minute re-election assistance to struggling Democrats.
Republicans, including myself, unanimously opposed passage of the trillion dollar boondoggle that financed these grants. At the time, I told The Bee and others that stimulus spending would not create sustainable employment, which it hasn't, but that it would be used to finance the re-election efforts of Democrats, which it was. The Bee not only failed to report my observations during the stimulus debate, but also failed to report the facts as they unfolded in our own community days before the election.
The president's effort to secure the re-election of Democrats who voted for ObamaCare manifested itself locally in a $715 million grant for high-speed rail in the San Joaquin Valley. The announcement of this funding rightly spurred outrage on the part of fiscal conservatives who not only see the stimulus spending as reckless, but view the high-speed rail project to be inappropriate, given California's financial crisis.
Setting aside the timing and manner in which the funds were awarded, as well as the fact that this spending has driven the national debt to an unprecedented and unsustainable level, it is important to understand the facts about high-speed rail in the San Joaquin Valley.
California's effort to establish a high-speed rail system has been chugging along since 1996 at anything but high speed. The projected cost of the system now exceeds $40 billion, but does anyone believe that this will be the true cost?
In one year, from 2008 to 2009, the High Speed Rail Authority was forced to raise its cost projections from $32.6 to $42.6 billion. Indeed, the final price tag of high-speed rail could easily exceed the combined federal highway spending in California for the 50 years from 1957-2007.
Given the enormous cost increases of California's high-speed rail so far, it is not unreasonable to question whether this project really has the necessary funding. Yet some have suggested that the $715 million grant announcement by the White House solidifies the future of the project. The fine print tells a different story and shows that this enormous undertaking will require billions in bonds, if the state can sell them.
However, even if the funding arrives as planned, Californians are likely to witness obstacles to their first ride on their new bullet train. The nonpartisan state auditor's report on California's High Speed Rail Authority says that the plan "risks delays or an incomplete system because of inadequate planning, weak oversight, and lax contract management."
Recent celebrations over high-speed rail in the Valley should be viewed with skepticism by taxpayers. Particularly when those dollars are promised by the now infamous Dustbowl Democrats who helped take away our region's water supply, decimated our timber industry and fueled a mass exodus of small businesses and entrepreneurs. Indeed, recent years have witnessed high levels of domestic outmigration as long-time residents vote with their feet by leaving the state.
The Bee and other proponents of the high-speed rail plan need to take an honest look at the cost of this plan within the context of the fiscal realities we face. To do otherwise risks a high-speed train wreck of public debt, which may or may not include a completed bullet train.
Now is not the time for fairytales about the future of travel in California, nor is it time to celebrate jobs that have yet to materialize.
The passage of time will tell taxpayers whether they were tricked or treated by President Obama's Halloween surprise. In the meantime, I would hope that Bee writers would refrain from mischaracterizing my remarks in an attempt to blame Republicans in order to protect the Dustbowl Democrats from their own political stunts.
Originally printed in the Fresno Bee.
Just days before Halloween and about a week prior to the general election, the White House announced billions in stimulus spending around the country. These grants, a by-product of the stimulus slush fund created by Congressional Democrats last year, were used to provide last-minute re-election assistance to struggling Democrats.
Republicans, including myself, unanimously opposed passage of the trillion dollar boondoggle that financed these grants. At the time, I told The Bee and others that stimulus spending would not create sustainable employment, which it hasn't, but that it would be used to finance the re-election efforts of Democrats, which it was. The Bee not only failed to report my observations during the stimulus debate, but also failed to report the facts as they unfolded in our own community days before the election.
The president's effort to secure the re-election of Democrats who voted for ObamaCare manifested itself locally in a $715 million grant for high-speed rail in the San Joaquin Valley. The announcement of this funding rightly spurred outrage on the part of fiscal conservatives who not only see the stimulus spending as reckless, but view the high-speed rail project to be inappropriate, given California's financial crisis.
Setting aside the timing and manner in which the funds were awarded, as well as the fact that this spending has driven the national debt to an unprecedented and unsustainable level, it is important to understand the facts about high-speed rail in the San Joaquin Valley.
California's effort to establish a high-speed rail system has been chugging along since 1996 at anything but high speed. The projected cost of the system now exceeds $40 billion, but does anyone believe that this will be the true cost?
In one year, from 2008 to 2009, the High Speed Rail Authority was forced to raise its cost projections from $32.6 to $42.6 billion. Indeed, the final price tag of high-speed rail could easily exceed the combined federal highway spending in California for the 50 years from 1957-2007.
Given the enormous cost increases of California's high-speed rail so far, it is not unreasonable to question whether this project really has the necessary funding. Yet some have suggested that the $715 million grant announcement by the White House solidifies the future of the project. The fine print tells a different story and shows that this enormous undertaking will require billions in bonds, if the state can sell them.
However, even if the funding arrives as planned, Californians are likely to witness obstacles to their first ride on their new bullet train. The nonpartisan state auditor's report on California's High Speed Rail Authority says that the plan "risks delays or an incomplete system because of inadequate planning, weak oversight, and lax contract management."
Recent celebrations over high-speed rail in the Valley should be viewed with skepticism by taxpayers. Particularly when those dollars are promised by the now infamous Dustbowl Democrats who helped take away our region's water supply, decimated our timber industry and fueled a mass exodus of small businesses and entrepreneurs. Indeed, recent years have witnessed high levels of domestic outmigration as long-time residents vote with their feet by leaving the state.
The Bee and other proponents of the high-speed rail plan need to take an honest look at the cost of this plan within the context of the fiscal realities we face. To do otherwise risks a high-speed train wreck of public debt, which may or may not include a completed bullet train.
Now is not the time for fairytales about the future of travel in California, nor is it time to celebrate jobs that have yet to materialize.
The passage of time will tell taxpayers whether they were tricked or treated by President Obama's Halloween surprise. In the meantime, I would hope that Bee writers would refrain from mischaracterizing my remarks in an attempt to blame Republicans in order to protect the Dustbowl Democrats from their own political stunts.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Westlands Water Boarding: The Truth About The Valley Drought Masters.
by DEVIN NUNES
In 1938, after signing the Munich Agreement with Nazi Germany, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain triumphantly returned to the United Kingdom to declare that the agreement will bring “peace for our time.”
His policy of appeasement and failure to challenge German aggression resulted in six years of war and inevitably dragged the United States into World War II.
The world paid a terrible price to learn that appeasement cannot bring peace but only delays war and emboldens aggressors.
Over the past five years, we have seen another kind of appeasement unfold in the San Joaquin Valley. Water managers have made the decision to appease radical environmentalists who have long sought to replace humans in the valley with tumble weeds and dust devils.
Like Chamberlain, water managers and some farming groups capitulated to a dangerous aggressor. In doing so, they adopted their own version of the Munich Agreement.
The San Joaquin River Settlement was sold as an agreement that would end all lawsuits “for our time.” Farmers and rural communities were promised that the river would be restored but the water would be recovered. Yet appeasement delivered no security and since the agreement was signed into law, new lawsuits have arisen and none of the lost water has been recovered.
In the meantime, radical environmentalists’ Field Marshall, Congressman George Miller, has taken aim at Westlands Water District. In a letter, Miller claims Westlands is deceiving the public and selling “extra” water.
Westlands took their opportunity to set the record straight. But Westlands also used the opportunity to appease valley Democrats and Senator Feinstein – legislators who have voted in favor of fish over families.
Attacking the radical environmental community’s field commander while paying homage to the region’s drought masters seriously undermines the position of Westlands’ farmers. It also threatens San Joaquin Valley communities that depend on Delta water. This self-destructive behavior is akin to death by a thousand cuts.
The irony is that Westlands has a long history of standing up to radical environmentalists, but their actions this week have put them in the same league as many other valley farm groups who have been apologists for valley democrats and Senator Feinstein for decades.
In Washington DC, it is nearly impossible to tell the difference between the valley Democrat drought masters and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, radical environmentalist Congressman George Miller, and liberal senators Feinstein and Boxer. They all voted for Obamacare, voted for the Wall Street bailout, voted to divert water from families to support a billion dollar salmon fishery, and they all support the union card check bill. Finally, they all voted to keep the pumps off and will never voluntarily turn them back on.
While this grand game of appeasement continues, Westlands should keep in mind that their beloved valley drought master legislators are telling them one thing but doing something completely different in Washington DC.
Will the Westlands Water District be holding their next meeting in Munich?
In 1938, after signing the Munich Agreement with Nazi Germany, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain triumphantly returned to the United Kingdom to declare that the agreement will bring “peace for our time.”
His policy of appeasement and failure to challenge German aggression resulted in six years of war and inevitably dragged the United States into World War II.
The world paid a terrible price to learn that appeasement cannot bring peace but only delays war and emboldens aggressors.
Over the past five years, we have seen another kind of appeasement unfold in the San Joaquin Valley. Water managers have made the decision to appease radical environmentalists who have long sought to replace humans in the valley with tumble weeds and dust devils.
Like Chamberlain, water managers and some farming groups capitulated to a dangerous aggressor. In doing so, they adopted their own version of the Munich Agreement.
The San Joaquin River Settlement was sold as an agreement that would end all lawsuits “for our time.” Farmers and rural communities were promised that the river would be restored but the water would be recovered. Yet appeasement delivered no security and since the agreement was signed into law, new lawsuits have arisen and none of the lost water has been recovered.
In the meantime, radical environmentalists’ Field Marshall, Congressman George Miller, has taken aim at Westlands Water District. In a letter, Miller claims Westlands is deceiving the public and selling “extra” water.
Westlands took their opportunity to set the record straight. But Westlands also used the opportunity to appease valley Democrats and Senator Feinstein – legislators who have voted in favor of fish over families.
Attacking the radical environmental community’s field commander while paying homage to the region’s drought masters seriously undermines the position of Westlands’ farmers. It also threatens San Joaquin Valley communities that depend on Delta water. This self-destructive behavior is akin to death by a thousand cuts.
The irony is that Westlands has a long history of standing up to radical environmentalists, but their actions this week have put them in the same league as many other valley farm groups who have been apologists for valley democrats and Senator Feinstein for decades.
In Washington DC, it is nearly impossible to tell the difference between the valley Democrat drought masters and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, radical environmentalist Congressman George Miller, and liberal senators Feinstein and Boxer. They all voted for Obamacare, voted for the Wall Street bailout, voted to divert water from families to support a billion dollar salmon fishery, and they all support the union card check bill. Finally, they all voted to keep the pumps off and will never voluntarily turn them back on.
While this grand game of appeasement continues, Westlands should keep in mind that their beloved valley drought master legislators are telling them one thing but doing something completely different in Washington DC.
Will the Westlands Water District be holding their next meeting in Munich?
Thursday, September 23, 2010
My Thoughts on the Pledge to America
by DEVIN NUNES
Some conservatives may look at the House Republican “Pledge to America” with concern – not over what it contains, but what it does not contain. There are, after all, several big issues that are not tackled, including energy security, fundamental tax and entitlement reforms. But I see this initiative as an important step in a far more ambitious plan to restore American liberty and prosperity.
First, the rubber stamp would be put away and the Obama Administration would be subject to meaningful oversight – something essential to the preservation of our freedoms.
Second, the House of Representatives - governed by a new Republican majority - will serve as the standard bearer for limited government and the strict adherence to America’s Constitutional principles.
And thirdly, Democracy will be restored to the People’s House after many tarnished years under the iron fist of Speaker Pelosi and her allies. Committees will examine and write legislation, not unaccountable special interests in the backrooms of the Speaker’s office. Ideas will be debated again, in place of intimidation and vote buying. Bills will actually be read before they are voted on and the American people will again have their voice heard.
These are good reasons to support the “Pledge to America,” as are the many proposals it contains to slim down and reign in government. However, the pledge should be viewed as the starting point not the ultimate solution to our nation’s enormous challenges.
Click here to download and learn more about the Pledge to America.
Click here to read about my comprehensive energy reforms contained in the Roadmap for Americans Energy Future.
Click here to read about A Roadmap for America’s Future, which fundamentally reforms our nation’s tax, healthcare, entitlement, and retirement security programs.
Some conservatives may look at the House Republican “Pledge to America” with concern – not over what it contains, but what it does not contain. There are, after all, several big issues that are not tackled, including energy security, fundamental tax and entitlement reforms. But I see this initiative as an important step in a far more ambitious plan to restore American liberty and prosperity.
First, the rubber stamp would be put away and the Obama Administration would be subject to meaningful oversight – something essential to the preservation of our freedoms.
Second, the House of Representatives - governed by a new Republican majority - will serve as the standard bearer for limited government and the strict adherence to America’s Constitutional principles.
And thirdly, Democracy will be restored to the People’s House after many tarnished years under the iron fist of Speaker Pelosi and her allies. Committees will examine and write legislation, not unaccountable special interests in the backrooms of the Speaker’s office. Ideas will be debated again, in place of intimidation and vote buying. Bills will actually be read before they are voted on and the American people will again have their voice heard.
These are good reasons to support the “Pledge to America,” as are the many proposals it contains to slim down and reign in government. However, the pledge should be viewed as the starting point not the ultimate solution to our nation’s enormous challenges.
Click here to download and learn more about the Pledge to America.
Click here to read about my comprehensive energy reforms contained in the Roadmap for Americans Energy Future.
Click here to read about A Roadmap for America’s Future, which fundamentally reforms our nation’s tax, healthcare, entitlement, and retirement security programs.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
White House Koch Attack
by DEVIN NUNES
Modern leftists, much like their communist forefathers, have long used the power of government to exert control and silence dissent. The erosion of free speech in America has come in a number of ways, not all of which are the result of new laws. Such is the case today.
I recently learned that the White House has launched an attack against a privately owned American company, Koch Industries. This attack may include the unlawful use of Internal Revenue Service documents.
As a Member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction over the IRS, I am highly concerned that the White House may be prying into the tax returns of its political enemies. For this reason, I have called on my Chairman, Rep. Sander Levin, to immediately conduct oversight inquires into the actions of the Obama White House. Should Chairman Levin fail to do so, I am hopeful that November will bring into power a majority willing to uncover the truth.
The White House attack against Koch is politically motivated. The White House wants to end the company’s lawful financial support for conservative and libertarian causes – effectively silencing its opponents.
Koch’s financial support goes to organizations like Humane Studies, a non-profit that underwrites libertarian academics, the Bill of Rights Institute, another non-profit that advocates adherence to our nation’s Constitution, and the CATO Institute, America’s leading libertarian think tank.
These Koch funded organizations and others like them represent the views of the company’s private owners – men who support limited government and libertarian causes. Their work stands in sharp contrast to that of George Soros, the billionaire socialist who created Moveon.org. The philanthropy of these two billionaires helps frame the ideological struggle confronting America today.
Koch’s giving has helped organizations that believe in American freedom and the Republic form of government. Soros on the other hand has built an empire of radical liberal politics. The seeds of Soros’ investments have grown to promote European Socialism in America, a renaissance of big government, and the unprecedented centralization of power.
In recent years, Democrats have become increasingly militant in their efforts to shake down corporate America. For the most part, big business has been willing to participate in the Democratic Party’s protection racket in order to prevent Congress and the President from doing something worse.
The examples are endless. The President extorted insurance and pharmaceutical companies as part of his health care reform initiative; Democrats in Congress extorted America’s financial sector under the auspices of financial sector reform; and radical environmentalists and their friends in Congress have transformed big oil into a cash cow to fund global warming hysteria.
In each case companies like Chrysler, Royal Dutch Shell, and General Electric have either directly financed attacks on our nation’s freedom or agreed not to oppose the attacks in order to maintain favor with their rulers.
The White House attack against Koch is an assault on American liberty. It sends a chilling message to conservative philanthropists concerned about the future of our nation and it signals that, as far as the White House is concerned, equal protection under the law only applies to the President’s supporters. The fact that the White House has chosen this path suggests that President Obama is leading a paranoid, insecure, and dictatorial Administration – one that is in desperate need of better Congressional oversight.
Modern leftists, much like their communist forefathers, have long used the power of government to exert control and silence dissent. The erosion of free speech in America has come in a number of ways, not all of which are the result of new laws. Such is the case today.
I recently learned that the White House has launched an attack against a privately owned American company, Koch Industries. This attack may include the unlawful use of Internal Revenue Service documents.
As a Member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction over the IRS, I am highly concerned that the White House may be prying into the tax returns of its political enemies. For this reason, I have called on my Chairman, Rep. Sander Levin, to immediately conduct oversight inquires into the actions of the Obama White House. Should Chairman Levin fail to do so, I am hopeful that November will bring into power a majority willing to uncover the truth.
The White House attack against Koch is politically motivated. The White House wants to end the company’s lawful financial support for conservative and libertarian causes – effectively silencing its opponents.
Koch’s financial support goes to organizations like Humane Studies, a non-profit that underwrites libertarian academics, the Bill of Rights Institute, another non-profit that advocates adherence to our nation’s Constitution, and the CATO Institute, America’s leading libertarian think tank.
These Koch funded organizations and others like them represent the views of the company’s private owners – men who support limited government and libertarian causes. Their work stands in sharp contrast to that of George Soros, the billionaire socialist who created Moveon.org. The philanthropy of these two billionaires helps frame the ideological struggle confronting America today.
Koch’s giving has helped organizations that believe in American freedom and the Republic form of government. Soros on the other hand has built an empire of radical liberal politics. The seeds of Soros’ investments have grown to promote European Socialism in America, a renaissance of big government, and the unprecedented centralization of power.
In recent years, Democrats have become increasingly militant in their efforts to shake down corporate America. For the most part, big business has been willing to participate in the Democratic Party’s protection racket in order to prevent Congress and the President from doing something worse.
The examples are endless. The President extorted insurance and pharmaceutical companies as part of his health care reform initiative; Democrats in Congress extorted America’s financial sector under the auspices of financial sector reform; and radical environmentalists and their friends in Congress have transformed big oil into a cash cow to fund global warming hysteria.
In each case companies like Chrysler, Royal Dutch Shell, and General Electric have either directly financed attacks on our nation’s freedom or agreed not to oppose the attacks in order to maintain favor with their rulers.
The White House attack against Koch is an assault on American liberty. It sends a chilling message to conservative philanthropists concerned about the future of our nation and it signals that, as far as the White House is concerned, equal protection under the law only applies to the President’s supporters. The fact that the White House has chosen this path suggests that President Obama is leading a paranoid, insecure, and dictatorial Administration – one that is in desperate need of better Congressional oversight.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
GOP Decision Time: A Great Leap Toward Honesty
by DEVIN NUNES
A shorter version of this commentary ran in the Washington Examiner on September 3, 2010. It was featured by Big Government on September 9, 2010.
When John Boehner was first elected Republican leader, he said he felt like the dog that caught the car. This is a metaphor for someone who works hard to achieve a major goal, only to be confronted with the age old question “What do we do now?” If Republicans take back the House and Senate, the party will actually be the dog that caught the car.
Victory at the polls means Republicans will inherit an angry electorate that has been voting for change since 2006. The country is at a crossroads. In one direction there is big, centralized government that usurps the rights of states, local communities, and individual Americans. It’s the job of the Republican leaders to outline another direction, but that direction is not yet clear to them. This must change before the next election.
Americans punished Republicans in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Conventional wisdom said the country wanted change. The truth is that Americans saw no real difference between Democrats and Republicans. The Republican brand has gone stale and paved the way for a new era of big government and socialism. As Newsweek boldly proclaimed in early 2009, “We are all socialists now.”
Thankfully, the prospect of this socialist era enduring is slim. The American public has learned what socialistic polices really mean. A budget deficit that was $161 billion when the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and four years later projected to be $1.47 trillion; and a national debt held by the public that was $5 trillion and four years later projected to be $9.2 trillion. This and a lot more, including a projected $2.6 trillion cost to implement the Democrats’ healthcare bill, have soured the experience of most Americans with a Socialist Golden Age. As Margaret Thatcher said, “…Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money.” We just didn’t know that the White House and the Democratic Congress would run out of other people’s money so soon, or that they could accelerate our financial mess so rapidly.
President Obama will be remembered in history for his sweeping legislative success in bringing about an unprecedented era of big government in an American “Great Leap Forward.” And like China’s Great Leap Forward under Mao during the late 1950s and early 1960s, the result will be economic failure. At the forefront of our financial mess are broken entitlement programs. The President has hastened our financial catastrophe but he is not alone in doing nothing to fix the unfunded entitlement liabilities, which are in excess of $60 trillion for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The line of politicians wanting to avoid this problem, or unwilling to understand it, extends back for decades.
The Republican leadership has taken the innovative approach of “listening” to the American public, using the latest technology to give Americans a voice in their government. Americans can go online or use their cell phones to recommend cuts in spending on the Republican Whip’s site “You Cut” or submit their ideas to the Republican Leader’s site “America Speaking Out.” Good ideas are then mentioned on the floor of the House of Representatives or may be included in any future Republican agenda.
But listening will only get you so far. At what point do Republican leaders break the news that the country is racing toward financial catastrophe? The Republican Party is not serving the American people well if its leaders imply that catastrophe can be avoided by texting votes for cuts that even if they were adopted would have little impact on our nation’s growing debt. A freeze in spending is good; eliminating earmarks is great; shutting an entire cabinet agency might even be better. Yet after all that, our country still goes bankrupt because the tough decisions on entitlement and tax reform are being ignored.
Republicans should learn a lesson from the Contract With America. In 1994, Republican candidates ran on a set of promises that had been poll tested and focused grouped. An election was won and there were legislative successes in the 12 years that followed. Yet by 2006 and the end of Republican control of Congress, the GOP had failed to convince the public that they could govern any better than the Democrats. The lesson is clear: Republicans have to define themselves through more than rhetoric and platitudes as the protectors of states’ rights, local community control, and, most importantly, individual freedom from the growing power of the federal government.
As the 2010 elections rapidly approach, the Republican leadership must put forward a credible plan that reforms entitlements, simplifies the tax code, and has a real energy policy. These policy changes would result in a balanced budget, a shrinking trade deficit, repayment of the national debt, and put Americans back to work. History will reward Republicans if we are honest with the American people; but first we must be honest with ourselves.
Devin Nunes, a Republican, represents the 21st congressional district of California. He is the author of Restoring the Republic (WND, 2010).
A shorter version of this commentary ran in the Washington Examiner on September 3, 2010. It was featured by Big Government on September 9, 2010.
When John Boehner was first elected Republican leader, he said he felt like the dog that caught the car. This is a metaphor for someone who works hard to achieve a major goal, only to be confronted with the age old question “What do we do now?” If Republicans take back the House and Senate, the party will actually be the dog that caught the car.
Victory at the polls means Republicans will inherit an angry electorate that has been voting for change since 2006. The country is at a crossroads. In one direction there is big, centralized government that usurps the rights of states, local communities, and individual Americans. It’s the job of the Republican leaders to outline another direction, but that direction is not yet clear to them. This must change before the next election.
Americans punished Republicans in the 2006 and 2008 elections. Conventional wisdom said the country wanted change. The truth is that Americans saw no real difference between Democrats and Republicans. The Republican brand has gone stale and paved the way for a new era of big government and socialism. As Newsweek boldly proclaimed in early 2009, “We are all socialists now.”
Thankfully, the prospect of this socialist era enduring is slim. The American public has learned what socialistic polices really mean. A budget deficit that was $161 billion when the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and four years later projected to be $1.47 trillion; and a national debt held by the public that was $5 trillion and four years later projected to be $9.2 trillion. This and a lot more, including a projected $2.6 trillion cost to implement the Democrats’ healthcare bill, have soured the experience of most Americans with a Socialist Golden Age. As Margaret Thatcher said, “…Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money.” We just didn’t know that the White House and the Democratic Congress would run out of other people’s money so soon, or that they could accelerate our financial mess so rapidly.
President Obama will be remembered in history for his sweeping legislative success in bringing about an unprecedented era of big government in an American “Great Leap Forward.” And like China’s Great Leap Forward under Mao during the late 1950s and early 1960s, the result will be economic failure. At the forefront of our financial mess are broken entitlement programs. The President has hastened our financial catastrophe but he is not alone in doing nothing to fix the unfunded entitlement liabilities, which are in excess of $60 trillion for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The line of politicians wanting to avoid this problem, or unwilling to understand it, extends back for decades.
The Republican leadership has taken the innovative approach of “listening” to the American public, using the latest technology to give Americans a voice in their government. Americans can go online or use their cell phones to recommend cuts in spending on the Republican Whip’s site “You Cut” or submit their ideas to the Republican Leader’s site “America Speaking Out.” Good ideas are then mentioned on the floor of the House of Representatives or may be included in any future Republican agenda.
But listening will only get you so far. At what point do Republican leaders break the news that the country is racing toward financial catastrophe? The Republican Party is not serving the American people well if its leaders imply that catastrophe can be avoided by texting votes for cuts that even if they were adopted would have little impact on our nation’s growing debt. A freeze in spending is good; eliminating earmarks is great; shutting an entire cabinet agency might even be better. Yet after all that, our country still goes bankrupt because the tough decisions on entitlement and tax reform are being ignored.
Republicans should learn a lesson from the Contract With America. In 1994, Republican candidates ran on a set of promises that had been poll tested and focused grouped. An election was won and there were legislative successes in the 12 years that followed. Yet by 2006 and the end of Republican control of Congress, the GOP had failed to convince the public that they could govern any better than the Democrats. The lesson is clear: Republicans have to define themselves through more than rhetoric and platitudes as the protectors of states’ rights, local community control, and, most importantly, individual freedom from the growing power of the federal government.
As the 2010 elections rapidly approach, the Republican leadership must put forward a credible plan that reforms entitlements, simplifies the tax code, and has a real energy policy. These policy changes would result in a balanced budget, a shrinking trade deficit, repayment of the national debt, and put Americans back to work. History will reward Republicans if we are honest with the American people; but first we must be honest with ourselves.
Devin Nunes, a Republican, represents the 21st congressional district of California. He is the author of Restoring the Republic (WND, 2010).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)